With legal victories over Intel in April and October totaling US$450 million dollars, Intergraph has taken its Clipper patent infringement case to computer manufacturers in an attempt to recover lost license fees involving customers using Intel 64-bit Itanium processors (see our previous coverage in April and October). Intergraph's Clipper patents cover how cache memory is managed. Named in the suit are Dell, HP, and Gateway. In papers filed in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas, Intergraph claims that it is entitled to lost user license fees for technologies covered in U.S. patents numbered 4,899,275, 4,933,835, and 5,091,846.

Intergraph claims to have been in contact with computer manufacturers since 1997 about patent infringements involving its Clipper system. Computer makers refused to settle the matter of user license fees, which prompted the lawsuit since Intergraph's settlement with Intel did not involve user licenses.

BRIAN'S OPINION
What an incredible gold mine for Intergraph! It has to be pretty high after getting US$450 million from Intel, which definitely makes its case against the computer manufacturers a little stronger, even though the company has to know it's going to be facing a dream team of lawyers from the technology business sector. Anyone who followed the OJ trial has an idea of what a dream team of lawyers can do.

I'm surprised that Intel was able to bow out of being responsible for individual computer licenses. That's like saying a computer parts store is responsible for patent infringement because it sold a product from a company that infringed on a patent. How in the world would store owners know whether a product infringes upon a patent unless they research everything they sell? I have a feeling that HP, Gateway, and Dell will probably push that very issue as well.

If Intergraph is successful in having computer manufacturers pay for licenses Intel should have paid for in the first place it will truly set an awful precedent and open the door to even more patent litigation.

USER COMMENTS 12 comment(s)

Dream team(10:21am EST Wed Dec 18 2002)I think that with those $450 Millions that they've gotten from Intel they have enough money to get a dream team of their own. Piece of cake!!! - by JCP

Its kind of a Catch 22(10:30am EST Wed Dec 18 2002)Someone is responsible for the licensing, but who? and how can one go about doing it?

Here is my look on things. If there were no patent violation then Intel would have been responsible for paying licensing fees to Intergraph. Intel then would have included its cost for licensing in the price of the Itanium processors.

Intergraph should not get any money from the computer manufactures because their licenses should have come from Intel, who has already settled with Intergraph on the case, therfore I would say that means they legally have licensing on their past products.

Theoretically Intel could sue the Computer manufactures for licensing that they did not pay, but that would most likely fall under the laws of Ex-Post Facto in the constitution.

Basically the Computer Manufactures can't be held responsible for it. - by Damien

Damn lawyers(10:36am EST Wed Dec 18 2002)My dog needs his knee operated on, Tibial Osteotomy, but in animals the surgery is patented! Can you believe that? THE SURGERY IS PATENTED!

What's next, a new way of wiping your ass that is more efficient but is patented so you have to pay to wipe that way? Imagine the royalty fees on something like that!

Lawyers, while not truly evil at creation, are the most horribly disfigured profession on the face of the planet! At least the woman who won $680,000 from McDonalds for spilling her coffee has never received a dime. The lawyers took it all in legal fees from the repeated appeals cases and she now owes THEM several thousand dollars. - by zaph1

What about the guy(10:37am EST Wed Dec 18 2002)who patented the web? He claimed to have a mid 1980's patent on the hyperlink. What happened to him? - by curious

What would happen…(11:02am EST Wed Dec 18 2002)

…if patents were abolished? The US Patent Office couldn't spot a real, patentable invention if bit them in the arse.

The whole system is broke.

- by Old Guy

What a gold mine it would have…(11:18am EST Wed Dec 18 2002)been if Intel hadn't have stolen the tech. How would HP, Gateway, and Dell have known? '97 Phone call from Intergraph to HP, Gateway, Dell : “Your using Intel products with our stolen tech.” HP, Gateway, Dell hang up and say, “So what?” I would be suprised if Intergraph has or will receive any money from Intel, just like Rambus. - by tech

Just maybe(11:32am EST Wed Dec 18 2002)Just maybe it will give INTEL a bad reputation and AMD will get the boost they need!!! - by AMD ME

interGraph sux(11:52am EST Wed Dec 18 2002)Those lewsers are just waiting for lawsuits from all their vague patents.

Patents are out of control! - by BillyGates

Damn geeks generalizing about lawyers(2:03pm EST Wed Dec 18 2002)zaph1, your problem seems to be with the US patent office, not lawyers. If the US had no lawyers, our entire system of law would not work. Don't hate the player (lawyers) hate the game (U.S. legal system). Overall, I think our legal system is pretty good, but there are some issues… as you note. - by Kirk

Just curiuos…(2:41pm EST Wed Dec 18 2002)Have lawyers ever sued each other? Wouldn't think so cuz you never see mosquitos bite each other for blood. - by NeanderGeek

What a load of nonsense!(4:09pm EST Wed Dec 18 2002)IF the patent was infringed then Intel needs to pay. If you bought one of Kodak's ripoff of Polaroid's instant camera, you got a settlement, not a judgement. The computer manufactures would deserved a settlement from Intel for being sold infringing chips, not have to pay to the patent whore. - by Jefferson

patents.(6:03pm EST Wed Dec 18 2002)Patents are only to keep haves in power.- by Bassie.